I’m still waiting for the author who has the fortitude to tell us what they appear to assume to be true: Jesus is in but the church is out. This pointed remark is not a vicious slam on the need to be missional and incarnational, but it does express the disillusionment I feel when reading some of these author’s scripts that suggest the church of today doesn’t really love Jesus. I guess if I wanted to sell books I could entitle my first release I Despise Jesus but I Love the Church. That’s the ludicrous and visceral reaction that emerges when I read the tomes spewing out of Zondervan, Thomas Nelson, Jossey-Bass and a host of other sources.
Everything Must Change, They Like Jesus but not the Church, The New Christians, Lord, Save us from Your Followers. The thoughts beneath the surface of these titles often lack any subtlety – the church of America’s recent past really doesn’t get Jesus. Dan Kimball, Sarah Cunningham, Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, Dan Merchant and a plethora of other self-titled postmoderns all have released books built around the same theme: God save us from your followers because the generation of today isn’t into the contemporary expression of the church. No doubt some of the ideas offered are needed missives and a call to mission. That’s fair game and a necessary dialogue. Often though what happens is what they claim to hate: generalize, build a straw man, and then burn it up. Southern Baptists, in particular, are an irresistible target. I’ll resist quote mining or proof-texting, but let me offer some observations that might be a tad different than much of the offerings that publishers so rapidly push to the press.
More than a few who admire Jesus are not up to speed on the Jesus of the Bible. I’m talking about the Jesus that spoke often of heaven and more so of hell (so conveniently omitted from many of these conversations). The Jesus pictured that promised not peace on earth but rather division in the household (Luke 12:49-53). The Jesus of Scripture who spoke of wide gates and easy ways that leads to destruction which, by the way, is a path populated by vast crowds. The exclusive Jesus that insisted somewhat dogmatically that He is the way, the truth, and the life and no one came to the Father except through Him. The Jesus that many postmoderns love is as much a caricature than the less than full portrait often painted in pulpits today. I admit too often the airbrushed Jesus downplayed and displayed in many modern pulpits is less than robust. Much of this is what the disillusionment of the younger generation entails: give us the real deal. That, in my opinion, would be a needed corrective.
Which leads me to assertion number two if that is allowable. I say that because of the absolute pronouncements in many of these writings that we ought not make absolute pronouncements. I’m relatively sure of this statement: correctives tend to pendulum way too far. Pinned with that statement is an admission as a conservative Southern Baptist that there were past excesses as we made course corrections that were sorely needed. The end does not justify the means whether you are Machiavelli or Saul Alinsky. I digress. The point is Jesus loves the church. Paul claims the church is exhibit A of His manifold wisdom for the rulers and authorities in heavenly places (Ephesians 3:10). I think that’s a proper confidence. Tony Jones states the church in the twenty-first century is dead. He’s dead wrong. It’s never been dead and never will be. Along similar lines the repeated death knell of denominationalism is way overstated. I know many will point to the recent Pew Research stats as evidence, but research by Nieman and Roozen suggests the effectiveness of a denomination’s work should be gauged chiefly in terms of serving its theological identity. That’s why the course correction in the SBC was needed to reestablish distinct doctrinal identity. It’s my contention that the research which delineates a lack of identification with Baptists is because of the persistent and consistent call to ditch that identity for an ecumenical and shapeless substitute. The deconstruction that has permeated our culture these past few decades have left many that call themselves believers both rootless and homeless according to Mark Driscoll. The alternative is believers that are rooted and built up in Christ and established in the faith. The church ought to enable strong roots and a family of believers. The culture of individualism which suggests if the church does not meet my needs, wants, or desires then I’ll ditch it for another is unbiblical and unhealthy. The elitism of some believers eliminates even the slight possibility that other believers might have something to show us about the love of Christ.
I need not run through a laundry list of other perceived slights the church has hung on the culture at large. It’s almost as if some would suggest we should apologize for saying what Scripture clearly states. No amount of hermeneutic gymnastics (way we interpret the Bible) will ever allow us to state that abortion is a-ok or homosexuality is fine if practiced in a monogamous relationship. There is no doubt of our need to reach out and alleviate both the root causes and real problems that lead all of us to express ourselves in way that don’t meet the mark or fall short of God’s ideal. It seems to me there is a subtle and perceivable shift that rightfully calls out the sins of consumerism, materialism, idolatry, greed, and other politically correct social maladies while dismissing calls for individuals to repent of rampant hedonism, drunkenness, orgies, sensuality, impurity, or other inventions of evil as somehow intolerant. Too many of us have dropped sin from our vocabulary in the therapeutic society we inhabit. We applaud instead of being appalled. In some ways, it’s more chic to join celebrities in saving the Timber wolf than it is to call for a concerted effort to save souls. I think it’s biblical to be a steward and care for creation, but we face great peril if we spend more time organizing and agonizing over the demise of the planet than we do the eternal demise of the people that populate the planet. Roy Fish encapsulates this in a nutshell:
In the coming years, there is going to be pressure on us to emphasize the redemption of the structures of society rather than the individual in society. . . Too many preachers are calling for a gospel that does little more than put a new suit of clothes on a man; we must preach a Gospel that puts a new man in a suit of clothes.
The final observation is pretty simple, although perhaps not very palatable. We whine way too much. It seems the books that tell us why people hate church decries the “in” or “out”, “us” versus “them” mentality that is said to characterize much of the modern church. I see no difference in the framework offered by these authors. They are in, and I’m definitely out. I don’t get “it”. I’m not with “it”. I’m perhaps hopelessly out of touch. My kids constantly remind me of that fact. The proposed remedy offered by the authors is get out the way and we’ll show you how it’s done. I recognize that mentality because I inhabit it so often; it’s neither generous or humble. I’ve been there, done that, and wrote the cliche. I may not get “it” but I hope myself and others do get Jesus. I’ve watched those before me, with me, and behind me leave a comfortable living to follow Him. Those that denigrate and despise that devotion leave many demoralized.
Isn’t it true that we all stumble in many ways? We are jars of clay, disposable vessels, and cracked pots. None of us have it all together. None of us have all the answers. That’s why we need both Jesus and the church. Jesus isn’t finished with any of us and only together with all the saints can I comprehend what is the breadth and length and height and depth of the love of Christ. We do need grace.
We also need truth. I wholeheartedly believe there are certainties that have been delivered once and for all that are not local, communal, and temporary theology. There are a whole host of fundamentals included in the command of Jesus to teach them to observe all things I’ve commanded you. We do have a sure and certain Word more valid than any experience or knowledge mined from science and the observation of nature. It’s why we desperately need Jesus to enable us to live out both grace and truth in this current age.
Good thoughts, Joe. Overall, I agree with you. But, I don’t know many Southern Baptists who are moving in the worst of the Emergent crowd, even those doing the most innovative ministry. A lot of what you’re reacting against, (“In some ways, it’s more chic to join celebrities in saving the Timber wolf than it is to call for a concerted effort to save souls”) is present, but not so much in Southern Baptist circles. Our commitment to God’s Word and absolute, revealed truth shields us from most of these perspectives.
I have had some of the same thoughts as you here. While I agree that our churches need to be continually reforming, there is a danger of falling into “wish dream” thinking, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls it in LIFE TOGETHER. These words of his hit me firmly:
“God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren. He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together. When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes, first an accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself.”
So, I agree that the visionary community that is being offered up after the ideal of the writers is often nothing more than straw. But, we must recognize that they are responding to the blind spots of our theology over the past 100 years or so, even if they are doing so poorly. In regard to Fish’s statement, conservative theology has woefully neglected the evil in our social structures. A biblical call for justice requires us to notice that fact, as we do on some issues like abortion. But, we ignore justice on other issues. My desire is that we embrace all of what God wants to bring through His Kingdom without forsaking absolute truth, personal salvation, the exclusionary atonement of Christ, etc. I believe that Biblical theology enables us to do that.
Thanks for you work on this. Sorry my comment was so long, but you engaged my thinking here.
Here thou art, o brother! Good post. Sums up, in many places, my own thoughts as well.
Brother Joe,
Jesus and His church really are distinctive,…what an eternal plan! Great article my friend. It is interesting that in our industrialized, now e-industrialized world, the disease of marketing and self promotion seethes into all aspects of the human experience trying desperately, sometimes without awareness, to eclipse the glory of God in Christ. The contemporary church is the latest sacrifice its own lambs in those selfish ritual of betterisms.
“More than a few who admire Jesus are not up to speed on the Jesus of the Bible.”…. What a great assessment of the real problem. A lack of discipleship has spawned a flurry of activity for the sake of betterment which is almost always aimed at the emotion. Oh for a return to the Apostles proclamation….Galatians 6:14 “But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”
“The end does not justify the means”…. The means are clear and you have drawn us back to that fact concerning His church. Again the Apostle makes clear to his student…2 Timothy 4:3-5 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, (4) and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (5) But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”
Thanks for coming out of your brief sabbatical to give us this encouragement.
Blessings,
Chris
I can’t believe I’m writing this but I wholeheartedly agree with you. :)
Brother Joe,
I have long wondered about those who like the idea of Jesus but seem to loathe the church for which He died. The scriptures teach us that “Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her …” (Eph. 5:25). It just seems to me that if we truly love Jesus then we will love those whom He loves and has given Himself to redeem. The church is His bride – imperfect at present, but still His beloved Bride.
Grace,
Wes
Alan:
Perhaps we’ve not embraced the emerging church movement en masse but it may be overstating that our commitment to absolute truth shields us from error. It’s one thing to preach the inerrancy of God’s and another to practice the sufficiency of God’s Word.
There is no doubt that we have neglected (at times) matter of justice, but the thoughts I often see in diverse areas is a lack of balance. Thanks for your comments. I love the reminder of the statement of Bonhoeffer!
Bart:
Comprehensive finals and dissertation preparation makes me think where brother art thou?
Thanks Chris – as always you point us back to His Father and His Word.
Les:
I can believe it!
Wes:
I think you are “spot on”
Brother Joe,
You said; “ It seems the books that tell us why people hate church decries the “in” or “out”, “us” versus “them” mentality that is said to characterize much of the modern church.”
You have said it well. It seems that when one tries to put a finger on this emerging experience it begins in divisiveness.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Well said my brother!
…oh, and Joe,
This is a great post! I have often thought that the emergent church, though we may benefit from the wake up call of its critique of the church today, we will find ourselves in a much deeper quagmire if we sell out to its solutions.
Sola Gratia!
I don’t get my theology from Barnes and Noble, but I was surprised last week when I walked into one of their stores and saw a table by the door with a sign above the books “The New Christians”. It was full of books from the authors you mention.
Thank you, Joe, for your keen insights.
brother Joe,
I think I’m with Alan…I guess I am hung up on the fact that this is “SBC TODAY”…and so I assume that the articles have to do with the SBC…today.
Given that assumption I’m a bit confused as to what the point of this article is. Indeed the Emergent conversationalists have emerged themselves right out of orthodoxy…but that’s not the case with the “emerging” missional Southern Baptists.
The SBC is not being threatened by either modern or postmodern liberalism…so what’s the point of this post? Sometimes I wonder if the fact that the conservatives have won has created a vacuum in some of our brothers, leaving them with nothing to talk about or target for battle.
IF & Alan,
Really? There are no emergent controversies or compromises being debated in the SBC today? Try reading our Missouri Baptist Convention newspaper (The Pathway) concerning the controversies of Acts 29 and the emergent style ‘theology on tap’ “Bible” studies taking place in some of our SBC churches. Let alone the emergent affiliations of so many confused SBC-CBF-Friend of Emergent-Inerrantists conversations in the SBC today and blogworld.
I am sorry, but you guys who continue to claim that the weaknesses of the emergents which pull Christians away from the centrality of the absolute truth of the Scripture, the person of Jesus Himself, and love for the church have missed it completely.
Sola Gratia!
brother Scott,
I have read of the MBC and Acts 29 Network controvery and I say, “shame of the MBC”! I’d have a dozen Bible studies in various bars in the area if such opportunity presented itself.
I pray someday it will.
In no way am I claiming the emergent movement is not pulling churches away from the gospel. But that is not a serious issue facing the SBC, so why is this boogie man being given so much attention. It’s a non-issue over all.
…to compare the Acts 29 Network with the Emergent movement is LAUGHABLE.
(sorry about the repeated comments, my computer slowed down a bit and I’m not patient)
I wish the SBC was as theologically conservative and convicted as the Acts 29 Network.
IF,
Again…when the movement begins to ooze into our churches in its ‘innocuous’ form, how long before people who are reading these ‘new Christians’ begin to discover a growing distaste for their Christianity and sell out to this new conversation?
I wouldn’t mind witnessing to lost people in bars and clubs…or inviting them to a bible study in my home or at church, but I am sure not going to condone and therefore never advertise in my church that we are having a Bible study at Bottleworks and don’t forget the cover charge!
‘Laughable’…that’s why Mark Driscoll has had to continually define emerging v. emergent…or is that emergent v. emerging…or is it the conversation v. …while standing too close to this fire he often finds himself with the unmistakable aroma of smoke. I appreciate his criticisms of the McLarenites, etc. I just find that his methodology constitutes a hangover from his post-modern associations.
Sola Gratia!
I honestly don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about brother Scott.
“New Christians”? What are you? What kind of Christian are you? 1st Century? 16th? 20th? I don’t understand what you mean. I would think that a Christian is a Christian.
If you had the opportunity to teach the Bible in a bar are you telling me that you’d say “no”? What about at a Kingdom Hall?
Why are you mocking Driscoll’s distinctions if such distinctions are valid?
I know many liberal Baptist churches who look like Southern Baptists, talk like Southern Baptists and sing like Southern Baptists…should I therefore equate liberal Baptists with Southern Baptists?
“I just find that his methodology constitutes a hangover from his post-modern associates”. Really…did you find that conclusion in the Scriptures? Or should we take your word for it?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for attacking a man of God like Driscoll. His style might not be your cup of tea but you are on real thin ice sir. You ought to rejoice that Christ is preached in Seattle.
this is an area of personal interest because of my own research. Stetzer says there are three type of emergents and many in the sbc realm are attempting to contextualize the gospel. The difficulty comes when conversation trumps conviction. Although Driscoll was in the initial forays of the emergent emphases, he no longer considers himself part of the movement. I disagree with the idea that it has no influence in SBC life because of so many I personally know that are listening to the ideas. I was in a megachurch recently and they had adopted some of the lingo. The missional term is an attempt imho to embrace some of the concepts without adopting unbiblical theology. Even the existence of the aforementioned networks is a changing phenomenon that we must wrestle with and acknowledge.
Ok, now I have a question, and if it is out of place here just let me know and I will withdraw it. However, I am beginning to think it at least touches on the issue at hand.
Not long ago in a meeting of our associational pastors, the DOM referred to a meeting he was in and they were talking about the “fluid” church – where we were to “engage society” beyond the four walls of the building.
Now, I know the church is not a building (I’m not that dense). I know we are to carry the love and gospel of Christ wherever we go. The problem is that when he used that term … something in me said “What?” The church is not a building, it is people – but it is people called out and assembled together. What is this “fluid church?”
Grace,
Wes (the dumb ol’ country boy)
Wes:
The idea of “fluid” church comes from various sources. Leonard Sweet talked some about it in his book Aqua church and Peter Ward actually has a book called The Liquid Church (not to equate the two). The difficulty in evaluating the emerging church is that it is like pinning jello to the wall. Peter Ward really does not believe we can be doctrinally certain about anything – we can only take a guess at semi-certitude.
The idea of fluidity is in some circles a reaction against what others call a “modern” or “Enlightenment” captivity of the church. Much of what the emerging church adapts and adopts is that the modern church is in cohorts with the straight-line thinking and bureaucratic ideals of the modern age. In some sense we are said to be in captivity to “solid” structures that appear to be terra firma but in reality are shifting sand. Dogmatic pronouncements and systematic theology are “out” and fluid “conversations” and authentic living are in. The key is to be humble and say we could be wrong about everything we’re thinking.
This is where the catch-22 comes in. Fluid, in the sense, of flexibility in some structures is a characteristic of some changing leadership structures. Fluid, in the sense, of truth is ludicrous. It’s the warning of Scripture in the last days that “people will be always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.”
IF:
I think Scott’s point is that for Easter (as has been pointed out) there was a whole section of books at Barnes and Noble entitled “The New Christians”. By the way, this is the title of Tony Jones’ new work as well :).
Brother Joe,
Thanks. I suppose I need to do more research on this emerging church business … but in all honesty – it has not really impressed me. I do, however, see it beginning to creep into our SB work.
The church (the called out body of believers in assembly) is certainly not perfect, but that doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. It again goes back to the point of your post. Christ died for His Bride, the church. As His bride we are to live holy lives – which is not very appealing to a lost mind and is in fact often in conflict with that mind. You don’t grow the church by becoming like the world (whether in thought or practice). The church grows by the power of God as more of its people become more like Christ.
If someone says “I love Jesus but I don’t like the church …” I have a real problem with that.
Grace,
Wes
brother Joe,
well…the only ones who call for new kinds of “Christians” are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. we don’t have any of ‘the new Christians’ in any significant influence in the SBC, thank God.
brother Wes,
there is a strong deconstructive emphasis in the Emergent church movement…it’s not Biblical. in fact Driscoll deals with this during his first session at the Text and Context Conference entitled “Putting Preachers in their Place”. he stands bluntly against it…and I do as well. we are not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together, as some are in the habit of doing…not to mention the fact that the instructions in Hebrews to honor and submit to our spiritual authorities is not possible to fulfill if the church is simply “fluid”. there is a great misunderstanding in both the extremes of Fundamentalism and Liberalism regarding the distinction of Catholic and the Local Church…they are not the same thing.
Brother IF,
Please help me understand what you mean when you say; “there is a great misunderstanding in both the extremes of Fundamentalism and Liberalism regarding the distinction of Catholic and the Local Church…they are not the same thing.” I am not challenging you, yet, :>), but I just want to get a handle on what you mean.
Blessings,
Tim
IF,
You are an enigma wrapped in a mystery surrounded by a conundrum. At times I can find myself agreeing with you and then I find myself reacting to your reactionary comments. Disagreeing with one of your heroes does not place me at the precipice of danger. I applaud Mark Driscoll for his continuing distancing from the errors of McLaren et al., but I do not have to accept his other errors for mortal fear for my soul in criticizing where I believe him to be wrong.
Wes,
I believe ….Emergent – emphasizes conversational methodology rooted in the individual (cogito ergo sum), not propositional truth founded on the prophets and the Apostles.
Paul put it this way…
Colossians 1:25-29 “Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, (26) that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, (27) to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. (28) We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. (29) For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.”
And this way…
Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, (20) having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, (21) in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, (22) in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
I love labels, I think I “emerge” everyday when I step out of my door into the world. I converse with folks continually, but what I am doing is not the church. The church functions differently than when I am in the work place sharing the gospel of God. The church is fitted together, fellow citizens with the saints. That distinction will never be lost, it will only be transitioned upon His coming again.
The emergent church or the emerging church movement is simply “new terminology” for attempts to use or “label” technology as an effective way to reach people. If one truly believes that technological advances or can somehow change the nature of the church, opposed to how Paul has correctly outlined the church above, then they simply have replaced Christ with the “new label”. It is just another fad. I think I can remember when “bowling alleys” and “basketball courts” were the latest emerging thought for the church. I guess you could call those attempts “pre-emergent” now.
It seems to be a challenge to spot the impostors in the churches…..they deviate from the Word of God (propositional truths), but as Jude has told us, they can go unnoticed. The saints should be vigilant….
Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ………
Jude 1:14-19 It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, (15) to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” (16) These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage. (17) But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, (18) that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” (19) These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.
Our brother Paul, says to “preach the Word.” Conversations don’t hurt, unless you prefer the conversation and drop the preaching!
Blessings,
Chris
brother Scott,
Driscoll is certainly not above scrutiny, no one is. My challenge is to statements such as “I have found…” Where have such conclusions been “found”? If one has a problem with Driscoll then reason from the Scriptures…save the unhidden sarcasm about him having a “hangover”…it’s not half as clever as it was intended. It’s actually disgusting, uncalled for, unChristlike and should be taken down from the comment section in my opinion. Not all God honoring, conservative and admirable preachers hold to the complete abstinence position…that doesn’t make them drunkards…and it does make them encouragers of drunkenness either.
Brother Tim,
I am hearing much confusion regarding the nature of The Church and a local church. The Emergent types apply principles of The Church to the local church…such as the denial of authority. While The Church does not have visible leadership, the local church does. The Church of Jesus Christ certainly ought to be “fluid”…but to apply that principle to a local church is perverted, it’s unBiblical.
Fundamentalists take instructions to the local church and apply them to any gathering of Christians…including parachurch organizations, seminaries and agencies. The role and authority of women is a prime example. Women are prohibited from teaching doctrine to men in the context of local church authority…to stretch that outside of the boundaries of the local church removes the instruction from its context and significance.
To wander from a strict and clear understanding of The Church and the local church will end in abuse…one way or another. I see both extremes lacking strictness with this doctrine and reeking havoc all over the place because of it.
Chris,
Thanks brother … I think I am beginning to get it. It’s not really that new of a development in the church. This idea of “don’t preach to me” or “I’ll just ‘be’ Jesus to the folks around me” stuff has been around for a while. Now we just have a new lable for an old sin.
The focus of the NT on the church is on the local assembly of believers, gathered for the worship of God and proclamation of His Word. A couple of Christians meeting over coffee and talking about their ideas of God is NOT a church. Though we all know the ever presence of God with His people – there is a unique presence of God in the gathering of the church when we gather for worship and proclamation. People miss so much when they refuse to gather with the saints of God.
Brother IF,
I hope you will receive this in the spirit its intended. I appreciate so much of what you write – and your reply to me above. I visited your site yesterday and saw where you were suffering from writer’s block because you thought you may not be angry enough to write. Brother, anger is not a good motivation for challenging fellow beleivers. Disagreeing with them is one thing; even challenging them for what you consider a slight of a fellow brother if you feel compelled to. But not in anger, for the wrath of man does not serve the purpose of God. I know from personal experience that all anger does is stir up more anger: “A gentle answer turns away anger, but a harsh word stirs up wrath,” (Pro. 15:1).
Grace,
Wes
thank you brother Wes…but I write and preach better when I’m mad. lol…I yell because I love.
I do understand the spirit and wisdom of your council and I agree. I don’t think anger is sinful but unjustified anger is. Being angry for the sake of it is sinful. Enjoying anger is sinful in deed.
IF,
Thanks for understanding my heart, Brother. I do understand passion in preaching (whether vocal or written) and I agree that anger itself is not a sin – if it is directed properly (Mt. 5:21-22). I would still suggest, however, that it is not a proper motivation for what we say or do. That is something better left to the One who knows all things perfectly.
Grace,
Wes